Kerygmania: The Great Commission

NenyaNenya All Saints Host, Ecclesiantics & MW Host
edited January 2022 in Limbo
On the Missiology 101 thread back in September @Eutychus suggested it might be worth a separate thread to discuss what Matthew 28:16-20 actually means and I'd be interested in such a discussion. In the circles I move in it genserally means going abroad to tell people they must be saved by believing in Jesus. I am not sure I agree and hope Shipmates can throw other lights on it.
«134

Comments

  • As @Baptist Trainfan said on that thread, the Greek words for "all nations" (panta ta ethne) in Matthew 28:19 leave little doubt as to their meaning.

    I was taught in my youth that Matthew was 'the gospel for the Jews' in that it contains more references than any other gospel to OT prophecy, intended to demonstrate to those familiar with the OT that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.

    However, I later heard reference made to the 'universality of Matthew', meaning that while it may be directed at Jews, it constantly emphasises the other nations, right from the genealogy of Jesus at the beginning which includes them.

    So the 'international' flavour of Matthew is not limited to the Great Commission.

    However, a similar thought is also to be found at the hands of Luke, in Acts 1:8:
    you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth

    And indeed, Acts records precisely this geographical progression in outward concentric circles.

    I certainly grew up with the "going abroad" exhortation @Nenya refers to and if I am where I am now, it's largely due to it. However, it's worth noting a few things:

    - as @Baptist Trainfan again says on the other thread, the Twelve were in no position to engage in cultural imperialism, so these texts are no justification for that
    - today, in many places it is quite easy to meet panta ta ethne on one's own doorstep; the challenge is not just one of geographical mobility but of being willing to leave one's "comfort zone" to engage with those who are not like us
    - the geographical spread of the Gospel in Acts ended up, for the most part, being in spite of the apostles (who doggedly remained in Jerusalem and expressed initial reservations about the Gospel reaching non-Jews) rather than because of proactive implementation of some missiological strategy.
  • In the missionary circles I used to move in, there was a great emphasis on the imperatives "Go" and "make disciples". However - and I'm no scholar - I think that a better translation could be "As you go/having gone, disciple all nations". Without wishing to contradict Acts 1:8 (which in any case is a statement or even a prophecy rather than a command) it seems that the emphasis should be on the "discipling" rather than on the geographical movement - although this element should not be dismissed! The content of the discipling comes later, i.e. baptising and teaching people to obey Jesus' commands. Interestingly nothing is explicitly said here about "preaching the Gospel" or about seeking a response!
  • What about the baptizing part with the Trinitarian formula? Don't some people think that was added later? Should all Christians be encouraging people to be baptized? Do you need to be baptized to be a disciple?
  • I'm not a textual critic, so can't comment on that. I do find it interesting that the "baptising" precedes the "teaching" (although, of course, baptism is an initiatory ritual so perhaps implies conversion.commitment to Christ).
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited January 2019
    I would agree with both of @Baptist Trainfan's posts above.

    Most evangelicals would not subscribe to baptismal regeneration, talking in terms of an "outward sign of an inward commitment" (which is how I see it) and point to a couple of get-out verses: the thief on the cross, and the 'noncommutative' ending of Mark's gospel (Mk 16:16)
    Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
    (it doesn't say "whoever does not believe and isn't baptised...").

    But John the Baptist's ministry shows that baptism was, in Judaism at least, a sign of a spiritual commitment, that appears to have been taken up by Jesus.
  • I'd agree with that. I wonder, though, if folk like the Conquistadores saw baptising" as the essential part of the "Commission"; doing it - even forcibly - not only fulfilled Jesus' command but "made the people into Christians". I don't know what happened to the "teaching them to observe" bit in this context although this, again, could be understood in a legalistic way (which, to my mind, goes against Jesus' own approach to rules and regulations).
  • I'm sure they did. It all goes back to Constantine... :naughty:
  • NenyaNenya All Saints Host, Ecclesiantics & MW Host
    Do you need to be baptized to be a disciple?

    Well, good question. I think being a disciple is more to do with what's going on in your heart and motivation, resulting in action, rather than an encounter with a large or small amount of water before or after you can have said to have repented - repentance being ongoing rather than a one-off. Not to discount it being the outer sign of an inner and spiritual truth.
  • IMO you don't need to be baptised to be a disciple. But, if you want to show that you are serious about following Jesus, and if you are serious about obeying his commands, then you will ask for baptism (or, in some traditions, confirmation).
  • Some years ago, when I was a 1"Bible-believing Christian," I used to read anything Jesus said as applying to me directly. That was until someone asked me "are you an Apostle?" I said, "No", of course, but it got me thinking. I concluded I had been reading the Bible wrongly for most of my life up until then and before quoting Jesus' words, that I should consider carefully the context and who He was speaking to.

    Since then, when considering the Great Commission, I cannot accept that it is a commandment to me personally. My first priority should be to try to live out my faith in my attitudes and example. "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

    IMO the Church should appoint evangelists - they have to be sent. That's not to say that the rest of us shouldn't talk about the Gospel to those who are interested, just that we shouldn't set ourselves up as "self-styled evangelists," any more than we can set ourselves up as apostles, priests or anything else.


    1 I still believe in the Bible, I just don't believe every word from Christ to anyone is a direct commandment to me, personally.
  • What do you think the Great Commission actually says?
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    What do you think the Great Commission actually says?
    1. Jesus had "All authority" to send the 11 out
    2. "Making disciples" was clearly synonymous with them being baptised.
    3. "Teaching them" was what the 11 were to do for the new converts.
  • Do we then assume that everything Jesus said to the disciples were expressly for them alone? And, if not, how do we distinguish between what's just for them and what is applicable to all Christians?
  • Synonymous or coterminous?

    Or 'congruent with ...'

    The early Christians had a very lengthy catechetical process which culminated in baptism. It could take several years. Whatever our view of baptism, as an 'outward sign of an invisible grace' or as something with sacramental efficacy or regenerative import, it seems always to have been preceded by or accompanied with structured instruction back then.
  • Do we then assume that everything Jesus said to the disciples were expressly for them alone? And, if not, how do we distinguish between what's just for them and what is applicable to all Christians?

    Not everything, I wouldn't say, just the things which have to do with Authority. We also take those things as being applicable to the eleven and those who succeeded them.

    That's where Apostolic Succession comes in, I know it's a problem for many, but how else can we distinguish between those who are sent and those who aren't?
  • Synonymous or coterminous?

    Or 'congruent with ...'

    The early Christians had a very lengthy catechetical process which culminated in baptism. It could take several years. Whatever our view of baptism, as an 'outward sign of an invisible grace' or as something with sacramental efficacy or regenerative import, it seems always to have been preceded by or accompanied with structured instruction back then.

    My opinion is that they are synonymous, but it doesn't mean people have to be baptised immediately before they have learnt anything - they have to know what they are being baptized into. But I don't think they can truly be called "disciples" until they have been baptised.
  • I think that Ratzinger was of the view that Matthew was written as a catechism IIRC.

    My take on it is that Matthew's audience is likely to have been (Hellenic) Jewish Christians (an anachronism, I know), and they may well have had a difficulty in understanding/accepting that their Christian sect of Judaism could include gentiles. Acceptance of gentiles is a theme that starts with the genealogy and goes through other narratives and ends with what has been called the great commission, though that is not a phrase that occurs in Matthew.

    For cultures distant from the early diaspora I think Christians have to think about who they have difficulty in including/accepting into their church. The stand out bête noires in my neck of the woods are the LGBTQI community. So I call the narrative THE GREAT ACCEPTANCE rather than The Great Commission.
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    What do you think the Great Commission actually says?
    1. Jesus had "All authority" to send the 11 out
    2. "Making disciples" was clearly synonymous with them being baptised.
    3. "Teaching them" was what the 11 were to do for the new converts.

    It's always seemed naively obvious to me that the original 11 were to teach new disciples everything Jesus had commanded them to do - and that this included the instruction itself.

    From this reasoning it follows that the Great Commission applies to all new disciples of Jesus too.

    I don't think all disciples have to be cross-cultural missionaries to another land, but I don't think there are two classes of believer in Jesus' thinking here, either.
  • Synonymous or coterminous?

    Or 'congruent with ...'

    The early Christians had a very lengthy catechetical process which culminated in baptism. It could take several years. Whatever our view of baptism, as an 'outward sign of an invisible grace' or as something with sacramental efficacy or regenerative import, it seems always to have been preceded by or accompanied with structured instruction back then.

    Does it? Acts 8:26-40 and then you have St Paul account of his own experience. Ideally should be but it is not always practical and God can work within those situations.

    I wonder how much the long catechism arose out of the development over worries about converts orthodoxies and the factionalism within the early church (yes right down to Biblical times). That is to what extent it was driven by the need for converts to be trusted by the community.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    What do you think the Great Commission actually says?
    1. Jesus had "All authority" to send the 11 out
    2. "Making disciples" was clearly synonymous with them being baptised.
    3. "Teaching them" was what the 11 were to do for the new converts.

    It's always seemed naively obvious to me that the original 11 were to teach new disciples everything Jesus had commanded them to do - and that this included the instruction itself.

    From this reasoning it follows that the Great Commission applies to all new disciples of Jesus too.

    I don't think all disciples have to be cross-cultural missionaries to another land, but I don't think there are two classes of believer in Jesus' thinking here, either.

    It's a non-Catholic point of view. I don't share it, but it's still good to discuss it. One point I would like to make is (observation 1) - it most definitely has to do with Authority.

    I know there's a new wave of restorationist charismatic protestants (eg. New Frontiers or whatever they call themselves now) who have their own views about "Authority," which they are entitled to, but it is important not to leave this out of the discussion.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited January 2019
    It may be a non-Catholic view, but it's one this text supports.

    The text here in Matthew doesn't refer to the Eleven as apostles but as disciples, the same word as used in the Commission itself. Neither does this particular text explicitly entrust the Eleven with authority; rather, it records Jesus' claim to hold all authority. Anything beyond that you are reading into the text here.

    My view on spiritual authority in the NT is as already described in the thread that spawned this one: it's authority to push back evil and advance good, not authority of some people over others. It's a lot harder to make the case for the latter view from the NT than is often supposed.

    (One of the reasons I ended up parting company with NF, looking back, is that I started actually looking to see what the Bible actually had to say on the subject of authority, rather than what they said it said).
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    (One of the reasons I ended up parting company with NF, looking back, is that I started actually looking to see what the Bible actually had to say on the subject of authority, rather than what they said it said).

    You probably knew my half-uncle, Mike Betts. Anyway, please bear in mind that their views of "Authority" are very different from the Catholic view.

  • And neither are supported by the text of the Great Commission, in my view.

    The only mention of authority in that text is the authority given to Jesus.
  • (Also, well before I left NF my dad (not part of NF or the Catholic church) had long held that the functional view of authority in NF is or was in fact very similar to that of the Catholic church, and I have to say I tend to agree with him).
  • Absolutely. However one has to say that some Christians take this as licence to evangelise however and wherever they want, without reference to any ecclesiastical or secular authority. That can't be right either; so, although the text indeed mentions no authority for evangelism except Jesus's, that has in practice to be mediated by some kinds of lesser authority. After all, we are members of the Church Militant and of civil society.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited January 2019
    Hmm, I'm really not sure about that. Most of the effective evangelism in Acts seems to have been done informally, by accident, or as the result of arguments!*

    The Apostles, doggedly staying on in Jerusalem despite Christ's words to them at the outset of Acts, spend most of their time trying to contain things after the fact (e.g. Acts 8:14; Acts 11:1-3).

    One of my most-quoted verses in Acts is 8:4:
    Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went

    I have heard, but cannot properly source, this being referred to as "gossiping the Gospel".

    I really think that's how this is supposed to work.

    I think that ideally, churches should be the byproduct of the outworking of the Great Commission, or what I would refer to as "seeking the Kingdom", and that they should not be a locus of institutional power (quite influenced in my thinking here by Roger Forster).

    I think that power being consolidated in churches (and thus Churches) is an unhappy accident of history during which the exercise of this power has been legitimised by leaders appropriating the notion of authority over evil enshrined in the NT and repurposing it to their own ends to mean, in practical terms, authority over other people.

    But I'm starting to rant now.

    ==

    *Coincidentally, Two cheers for anarchism, which I'm currently plodding through, notes that most major democratic progress has been the result of mass uprisings, not incremental institutional change.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    It's always seemed naively obvious to me that the original 11 were to teach new disciples everything Jesus had commanded them to do - and that this included the instruction itself.

    From this reasoning it follows that the Great Commission applies to all new disciples of Jesus too.
    I've always understood the GC to be directed at the church collectively, or the community of disciples if you prefer; I think that's usually how I've heard it presented. Whether that's on target or not . . . .

    My take on it is that Matthew's audience is likely to have been (Hellenic) Jewish Christians (an anachronism, I know), and they may well have had a difficulty in understanding/accepting that their Christian sect of Judaism could include gentiles. Acceptance of gentiles is a theme that starts with the genealogy and goes through other narratives and ends with what has been called the great commission, though that is not a phrase that occurs in Matthew.

    For cultures distant from the early diaspora I think Christians have to think about who they have difficulty in including/accepting into their church. The stand out bête noires in my neck of the woods are the LGBTQI community. So I call the narrative THE GREAT ACCEPTANCE rather than The Great Commission.
    Many, many thanks for this food for thought.

  • Eutychus wrote: »
    (Also, well before I left NF my dad (not part of NF or the Catholic church) had long held that the functional view of authority in NF is or was in fact very similar to that of the Catholic church, and I have to say I tend to agree with him).

    The difference IMO is that whereas the Catholic belief is that Authority originated from Jesus Christ himself to His Apostles and through Apostolic Succession to their successors (bishops) - and it is the bishops who have the authority to appoint evangelists - NF's "authority" seems to originate from Terry Virgo.

    They would claim that he received his "authority" from Jesus Christ himself, but I would dispute that. Needless to say, I don't discuss these things with my NF relative, but that's how it is from what I can see.
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    (Also, well before I left NF my dad (not part of NF or the Catholic church) had long held that the functional view of authority in NF is or was in fact very similar to that of the Catholic church, and I have to say I tend to agree with him).

    The difference IMO is that whereas the Catholic belief is that Authority originated from Jesus Christ himself to His Apostles and through Apostolic Succession to their successors (bishops) - and it is the bishops who have the authority to appoint evangelists - NF's "authority" seems to originate from Terry Virgo.

    They would claim that he received his "authority" from Jesus Christ himself, but I would dispute that.
    But that seems to support the point that @Eutychus was making—both the Catholic view and the NF views is that authority was received from Jesus Christ himself. Those with the Catholic view will dispute that NF authority was received from Jesus, lots of non-Catholics would dispute that the authority of bishops derives from Jesus himself, at least in the way of the Catholic understandings.

    So, both views that authority came directly from Jesus himself, which view may be disputed by others.

  • Eutychus wrote: »
    One of my most-quoted verses in Acts is 8:4:
    Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went

    I have heard, but cannot properly source, this being referred to as "gossiping the Gospel".

    I really think that's how this is supposed to work.
    I think you're actually right about that, I have heard it as well. I made a point of saying that non-authorised Christians weren't forbidden to talk or "gossip" about the things they believed, although they have to be careful that their manner of living matches the things they preach.

    I was really talking about self-styled "Evangelists" who start their own "churches", which have no authority and their sacraments are graceless - because they were not sent.
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    I was really talking about self-styled "Evangelists" who start their own "churches", which have no authority and their sacraments are graceless - because they were not sent.

    About 100 million Chinese underground church members here would like a word with you. In love.

  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    I was really talking about self-styled "Evangelists" who start their own "churches", which have no authority and their sacraments are graceless - because they were not sent.

    About 100 million Chinese underground church members here would like a word with you. In love.

    Yes, well, we're working on that! :wink:
  • I've certainly used that phrase "gossiping the Gospel", mainly in the context of all Christians (and not just "evangelists") being witnesses for Jesus.

    In my earlier post, though, I was thinking more of people who go to remote places, declared off-limits by the secular authorities either for cultural reasons or because of the risk of transmitting infection, claiming that they have Jesus' authority to do so. And - let's be honest - I'm also thinking of situations in Britain where evangelistic entrepreneurs try to start up new congregations without any reference to the churches that already exist close by, and who may be glad of their help.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Eutychus wrote: »
    <snip>
    One of my most-quoted verses in Acts is 8:4:
    Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went

    I have heard, but cannot properly source, this being referred to as "gossiping the Gospel".<snip>
    I’m familiar with that phrase too, though I don’t know what it’s origin is. Translating Acts 8.4 into English is problematic because I don’t think English has a specific word for telling/passing on/proclaiming specifically good news. With apologies to the professional translator, and to English language purists, the most helpful translation might be ‘good-newsing the word’.

    Translations tend to go for something like ‘proclaiming the good news’, but that is very easily read as being rather like preaching for which NT Greek has its own separate word. I think ‘gossiping the gospel’, apart from its pleasing assonance, gets away from the more formal idea of preaching.

  • In my earlier post, though, I was thinking more of people who go to remote places, declared off-limits by the secular authorities either for cultural reasons or because of the risk of transmitting infection, claiming that they have Jesus' authority to do so.
    Sounds like the Inquisition to me :naughty:

    Extreme cases make bad laws. There's a difference between being a fool for Christ and a twit for Christ. Jesus' mission guidelines referred to in the previous thread include advice not to go (or at least not to stay) where you're not welcome.

    Besides, the Great Commission doesn't mention the gospel or evangelism. It talks about making disciples.

    As @LatchKeyKid has eloquently shown above, there are more ways of interpreting the universal applicablity of the Great Commission than decisionist evangelism.
    And - let's be honest - I'm also thinking of situations in Britain where evangelistic entrepreneurs try to start up new congregations without any reference to the churches that already exist close by, and who may be glad of their help.
    I feel your pain. I have just received an email from someone in the US wanting to parachute an evangelistic team in my city in the height of summer. Should I declare us off-limits for cultural reasons, or invoke the risk of us dying from some nasty foreign disease? :naughty:

    But again, churches setting up rigid authoritarian rules is not going to stop these people (by whose authority might one police them?).

    And most annoyingly of all, some people may actually end up becoming disciples of Christ as a result of (or despite) their efforts...
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited January 2019
    Indeed so ... and didn't a certain gentleman in the Bible say that he rejoiced at such instances?
  • Indeed so ... and didn't a certain gentleman in the Bible say that he rejoiced at such instances?

    Yes, it does sound familiar - I'd like to find those verses.
  • Philippians 1 vv15-18:
    "Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
    The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
    But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
    What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."
  • That's the one!
  • On the 'authority over evil' thing that Eutychus intriguingly mentions, what does that actually look like and how does it work in practice?

    I'm sure those of us who've been involved in charismatic outfits at one time or other have been in meetings which supposedly 'took authority' over the powers of darkness with all sorts of 'binding and loosing' and jiggery-pokery.

    I'm sure that isn't what Eutychus has in mind.

    How do we recognise such authority? How can we tell when it is there or actually exists?

    Having 'authority over evil' sounds abstract to me. What do we actually mean by that?
  • What I mean above all is emphatically that it's not authority of some over others. I'd much rather casting out the goddess Reason for the nth time than that.

    More positively, and again harking back to the references given in the previous thread, I think it means we have a mandate to push back bad stuff and encourage good stuff.

    One line I recall John Arnott saying and which I've often repeated since: "God: good; devil: bad". Of course things aren't so simple, nevertheless I think that disciples of Jesus could do a lot worse than simply making sure they're doing and encouraging good and not evil. Jesus tells us the devil is a liar from the beginning and comes to kill, steal, and destroy. If we can at least start by doing the opposite of all that, it's a good start.
  • Sure, but where does the 'authority' thing come into that? Doing good stuff and avoiding or opposing bad stuff is something people of all faiths and none can sign up for.

    Why even use terms like 'authority' in that context? It doesn't make any sense.
  • The "authority" clearly has something to do with the mandate to go, baptise and teach - but we are not explicitly given any indication as to what the authority is over. It's intriguing to compare this with the parallel passage in the longer ending of Mark, where the believers are not only told to do the same things but also that they will be given power over sickness, demons and snakes. This injunction (wherever it comes from!) explicitly suggests displays of authority - yet here it isn't mentioned!
  • Indeed. Lots of questions begged. The disciples appear to have been able to do what John Wimber used to call, 'the stuff.' Healing people, casting out demons, all the supernatural stuff which embarrasses us today, unless we are Catholics/Orthodox and assign all that to Saints and the collective authority of the Church, or else charismatics or Pentecostals with an often over-realised and over-egged sense of expectation that is belied by harsh reality.

    What are we dealing with here? Metaphor?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    I don’t think the Great Commission is phrased in terms of “authority over”. It is about “authority to”.
  • But surely the two usually go together? "You" give me the authority "over" someone so I can "do" whatever it is without let and hindrance.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    I don’t think the Great Commission is phrased in terms of “authority over”. It is about “authority to”.
    But as @Eutychus notes above, it’s Jesus’s authority. Nothing is said about any authority of the apostles. Jesus says “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” And then he seems to exercise his authority by telling the apostles what to do: “therefore go,” “baptize,” “teach.” And of course, what they are teach is “to observe all that I have commanded,” another statement of authority as it presumes authority to command.

    But nothing about the apostles’ authority.

  • When Jesus sends out the Twelve in Matthew 10:1 it does say that he gives them authority 'over spirits'. I think (but have not checked) the same expression is used in at least some of the other 'sending out' passages.

    My contemporary understanding of 'spiritual authority' is simply that we have a mandate from Christ to do things in his name, as the Great Commission suggests.

    As far as the ability of the disciples to exercise that authority in spectacular terms in the Gospels goes compared to today, I've been quite taken by @Martin54's "big rock dropped in a pond at the incarnation with gradually decreasing ripples" explanation.

    What has really struck me, though, is the complete lack of any mention of 'authority over people' in the NT. This came home to me when I was still a pastor in NF and as a leadership we looked at appointing more elders. I went through the NT to see what it said about authority and eldership and was amazed to discover that the phrase 'over you/them' occurred precisely nowhere in relation to people.

    With time, I've come to see this obsession with hierarchical authority as an expression of patriarchy and a desire to enfeeble rather than empower. I don't think it's in the NT and I would say it's 'not Kingdom-of-God'.
  • I quite agree, but that's not what I was thinking of. Rather, to what extent - as I asked earlier - does the authority behind Jesus' mandate imply that people should and can evangelise even when governments or other earthly authorities tell them not to? For there are those who would content that Jesus' authority trumps any such restriction - indeed, that it has to.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited January 2019
    Well, as in reply to @Mark Betts, I think about 100 million Chinese house church Christians would say "yes". As did Peter and the apostles in Acts 5:29.

    But not recognising earthly authority as absolute does not mean a Christian can do as they like.

    To be credible and consistent, claiming the authority of Christ and/or acting in his name involves asking oneself 'What Would Jesus Do?'

    Trite, I know, but I hardly think Jesus would come and sneeze all over a bunch of indigenous tribespeople, especially when he'd been asked to leave.
Sign In or Register to comment.